Am not seeing that argument at all. Not subjectivist at all. Appears to be
more of an attack on non-artists as Definers of Art. Unspoken message seems
to be that while many things are depicted as art and defined by someone as
art, few of those things are art and most of those who define, lowbrow or
high, have valid definitions. Carey knows what art is not. He may know what
it is, but it's a case-by-case definition. His criteria is never clearly
on 5/22/05 1:26 PM, Carrol Cox at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> What is art?
> I don't know about the rest of his arguments, but Carey's answer to this
> question is more or less a tautology and hardly anything very new: “A
> work of art is anything that anyone has ever considered a work of art,
> although it may be a work of art only for that one person.” Any other
> definition, incidentally, makes a hash of any claim that Work A is "good
> art," while Work B is "bad art." If "Trees" isn't art, then to say it is
> bad art is incoherent. Moreover, if it isn't art, then it can't be
> judged by any set of artistic criteria.